Are today's gamers too soft?

Ah, this is why I didn't think bombs worked ... because they probably didn't when I had tested it:

Quote:Q: I'm using bombs against Darknuts. They flash and get knocked back,
but they're not dying! What's going on?

A: An oddity of the game. Darknuts are immuned to ANY attack directed
at their front. This is all fine and dandy, it's just the way that
the game determines what's a "frontal attack" that causes the
problem. If you PLACED the bomb while facing to the RIGHT and the
Darknut gets hit by the explosion when it's facing LEFT, it will be
considered a "frontal attack" and it won't get damaged by the bomb
at all, but it will still flash and get knocked back as though it
had been. Yes, even if the bomb actually blew besides or behind it
and even if you weren't at the same height on the screen. Kinda
stupid, but it's still a nice extra challenge, I suppose. On second
thought, it's more annoying than anything.

What this thread sounds like to me "Fable... Hate it then play Ninja G, and love it. (I don't own an Xbox. Too poor I'm a student) am I right? Please say no.

Nevada Wrote:Also, it's cool to have it divided up in 'levels'. That way if the player gets 'stuck' at a certain save point (ie. he has close to no health and no ammo and there's no hope for him making it to the next save point) they can at least be able to restart at the beginning of the level with all their health and default ammo.

Good question. Soffen the player? or make him play through the game. How about a Way to tell hit ratio and health/ammo usage on a on particular monsters and tell the player that to continue, try again or you could let them try to continue at a different difficulty, put that into the story.
I agree with keeping the dificulty just under throwing your keyboard through the screen for normal, but have a trainer dificulty and an Impossible difficulty. That's probably the best way to keep the players happy. I personally think that Difficulty should be based on much experiance the particular player has with certain attacks. Then again that's too much programming. Lastly I think there should be a devided market for those Harcore, or Casual Gamers.

Thanks for your all of your 2 cents cuz that means I might get one back for Mine But my Question is who get's my other one?

You know the whole difficulty thing has SO much to do with the actual gameplay. Some hardcore retro games REQUIRE insane difficulty to make them fun. The first time you drop a quarter your game is over in 10 seconds. It's what they are, an in your face challenge! Take Defender, for instance. That game is SO limited in so many ways, the controls on the machine are intentionally intimidating. (The joystick only goes up and down with a "reverse" button) It's great that way. Every inch gained is a huge accomplishment and it makes it fun.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, some games are just so fun to play around in, you almost forget there is a goal. Take Mario 64 for example. Most people spent a huge amount of time just running around in the field OUTSIDE the castle the first time they played, just skipping around. It is SO fun even today. Now that game eventually got really challenging, but I know people who really enjoy it and don't even care about finishing it.

Games like Sim City are fun even if you are losing, but can be quite challenging to gain certain goals. Face it, watching a city stuck as a little town can be a lot of fun.

So, it's all a factor of the game. If it is fun to play without artificial difficulty, just keep it easy! If it's the type of game that seems more fun when it is a huge challenge make it harder.

The important thing is that the player gains satisfaction from playing. Major play testing is the only way to figure this out.

aaronsullivan Wrote:Take Mario 64 for example. Most people spent a huge amount of time just running around in the field OUTSIDE the castle the first time they played, just skipping around. It is SO fun even today.

OT ... I can't help myself! I first played this game during my birthday party the year N64 came out ... I rented the system and game for the party (I'd never had more than an 8-bit Nintendo to this point).

I did exactly what you described! Jumping around, skipping, etc. ... I spent the whole night and actually the whole weekend playing, because I knew I'd have to return it and I had so much fun and my parents were actually letting me play (a miracle, I assure you!) .... anyway, I remember going outside into the "real world" after that weekend for the first time, and seeing the blue sky, and green grass, and everything seemed just ... off. I was so absorbed by Mario 64 (and this amazing 3D experience!) that it changed my perception of reality significantly. I never did have an N64 after that weekend.

Ahem. Anyway, yes, you raise some great points, Aaron. It is ideal to have a game that is just plain fun for anyone to play, but which you can really delve into and face great challenges if that's what you want. Though no, there is nothing wrong than a game that is meant to just be a hard challenge, or meant to be just mindlessly easy fun. ... But the great games acheive that balance of both to satisfy any gamer.